LDS II: The Mormons

[Slowvehicle]

This really isn't a new observation, but what bugs me about this conversation is the sensation of dishonesty. It's not how conversations about historic evidence go--and I've had a kazillion of them about a much more recent period.

If one doesn't have evidence, one says so.

Below is how my one-sided end of a conversation might sound on a topic that I might actually be discussing:

"Well, I don't know what happened to him, but demographically, free blacks tended to leave the south at that time, so I wouldn't be surprised if he refused to return to his master."

"Oh, he's on the census next door? Guess he did."

"Wait, that man is 25 years older, could it be his father who was too old to leave or had a more emotional connection to his master? What about this man in Oregon? But without biographical info, we can't connect him to the east."

"Hold on, what about this story about a guy from Richmond who acted as a cook for this wagon train going out west? Is that him?"

There's not a lot of "Yes he did and I know he did and I have faith that evidence will come forth to prove that he did if we just wait." It's about digging (metaphorically or literally) for what current evidence is available and analyzing it, looking where it indicates more evidence might be found, analyzing that, and so forth. I've not done archaelogical investigations at all, only occasionally reading the reports, but I doubt that such conversations go much differently.

This conversation just has the wrong smell test.

Not to mention the whole, "Your mind is closed because you are unable/unwilling to provide the evidence that would support my position, for which you are asking," gambit.

 

[Border Reiver]

If non-profit organizations like the Church did not do what they do (operate everything from soup kitchens to spouse abuse shelters), government would have to carry out those functions. Consequently, your tax bill would be much higher than it is today. Do you really believe bureaucrats are efficient money managers?

In the US, the government statement of accounts are open for all to examine, review and criticize. All ciitizens have the opportunity to have input into the development of said priorities and spending priorities can be changed through the democratic process.

The LDS books are not open to public scrutiny.

 

[Slowvehicle]

In the US, the government statement of accounts are open for all to examine, review and criticize. All ciitizens have the opportunity to have input into the development of said priorities and spending priorities can be changed through the democratic process.

The LDS books are not open to public scrutiny.

"Non-Profit" =/= five million dollar pipe organ

 

[tsig]

If non-profit organizations like the Church did not do what they do (operate everything from soup kitchens to spouse abuse shelters), government would have to carry out those functions. Consequently, your tax bill would be much higher than it is today. Do you really believe bureaucrats are efficient money managers?

I thought they did that at home.

Got any figures about how much the church contributes to charity?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Do you really believe bureaucrats are efficient money managers?

Frankly, the more experience I have with bureaucrats, the more I do. If you want to pinpoint the largest sources of waste in a government, look to the private contractors that have lobbied themselves into lucrative unregulated and unaccountable niches.

 

[halleyscomet]

If non-profit organizations like the Church did not do what they do (operate everything from soup kitchens to spouse abuse shelters), government would have to carry out those functions. Consequently, your tax bill would be much higher than it is today. Do you really believe bureaucrats are efficient money managers?

Fascinating.

You're equating efforts to deny people the right to marry on religious grounds with feeding the homeless or providing shelters for victims of domestic abuse.

You appear to consider the suppression of civil liberties a Mitzvah, so long as the victim is an undesirable.

I'm going to have to alter your characterization in "Janadelle's Complaint." The first draft depicts you as an ultimately sympathetic character who has been mislead by the delusions and bigotry of the Janadelle based character. Now that I've seen more of your own prejudices and logic, I'm realizing the character based upon you really needs to be the most malevolent character in the piece. Janadelle behaves as she does in the book out of bigotry and religious pride. The character based upon you however really needs to have much darker motivations.

I'll need to expand the base of LDS characters in the next draft. I used you to show a growing realization of just how divorced the villain was from reality in her accusations, but now I realize you'll need to be rewritten as a imp on her shoulder, goading her on for your own ends. I'll need a new character to personify the LDS community waking up to what's really happening.

 

[skyrider44]

Frankly, there are none.

Oops! Here you admit that my claim that SV believes there is no evidence for anything of significance in the BoM is valid.

You MUST be desperate for evidence if you're asking us to provide some, when we've spent pages upon pages examining testable claims in the BoM that prove it a pack of damned lies.

You don't know a fraction of what BYU apologists know about the BoM. You speak of examining "pages upon pages" in the BoM. BYU researchers have spent years—in some cases, their entire professional lives—studying the BoM.

I have deleted the balance of your post; it offers nothing new.

 

[tsig]

Oops! Here you admit that my claim that SV believes there is no evidence for anything of significance in the BoM is valid.



You don't know a fraction of what BYU apologists know about the BoM. You speak of examining "pages upon pages" in the BoM. BYU researchers have spent years—in some cases, their entire professional lives—studying the BoM.
I have deleted the balance of your post; it offers nothing new.

GIGO

 

[halleyscomet]

Oops! Here you admit that my claim that SV believes there is no evidence for anything of significance in the BoM is valid.

No. I am not saying your accusations about SV are accurate. Your Sisyphean need to recast his comments in a manner more convenient for your rhetoric is not aided by my comments.

I am stating, flat out, that you have provided no evidence to support the testable claims in the Book of Mormon. There is NO reason to consider the Book of Mormon to be anything other than a work of fiction.

I am also flat out stating that there is considerable evidence that directly CONTRADICTS the Book of Mormon.

You don't know a fraction of what BYU apologists know about the BoM.

So what?

I love how conspiracy theorists who've run out of "evidence" to present resort to this comical tactic. They whine and bleat "Well, you need to do more research to understand!!!" as if reading volumes of excuses will make proof magically materialize from the quantum void.

Horses and steel. Show me the evidence. I don't care about excuses from witch doctors.

You speak of examining "pages upon pages" in the BoM. BYU researchers have spent years—in some cases, their entire professional lives—studying the BoM.

So what?

You keep wanking about apologists when we're discussing archeology and anthropology. I don't care about the excuses made up by people with a vested interested in preserving a specific claim. I care about the EVIDENCE. Your precious BYU apologists have offered none.

If this were a theology discussion, then your myopic focus on BYU apologists would be relevant. This however is not about theology, it's about history.

I have deleted the balance of your post; it offers nothing new.

I admit, open discussion about a work of fiction I'm writing isn't really germane to the indisputable fact that the BoM is a work of fiction created by a con man for the purpose of having sex with multiple women, at least some of whom were underage, even by standards of the day.

 

[Pup]

You don't know a fraction of what BYU apologists know about the BoM. You speak of examining "pages upon pages" in the BoM. BYU researchers have spent years—in some cases, their entire professional lives—studying the BoM.

There are more than a few people who have spent years--in some cases their entire lives--tryiing to build perpetual motion machines, with no success at their efforts being supported by mainstream academia.

The average person would say that it's because building a perpetual motion machine is simply impossible, no matter how much effort one puts into it, and no matter how much remains to be discovered about (cringe) quantum energy and chaos theory. That's why mainstream academia has simply moved on, rather than continuing to focus on potential success. At this point, only complete success would make them take notice.

I'd say the same is true for proving the Book of Mormon to be an accurate historical reference for the Americas. Spending a lifetime trying to prove its accuracy is similar to the obsessiveness or crackpottery of spending a lifetime on perpetual motion or some similar fringe project. There's just too much evidence it's not going to happen, so most scientists have simply ignored it and moved on.

However, I suspect that you'd conclude differently, and say that mainstream archaelogy has a deliberate bias against the Book or Mormon, or some similar conspiracy type belief. Is that correct? How do you feel spending a lifetime trying to justify the Book of Mormon differs from spending a lifetime trying to develop a perpetual motion machine, when mainstream academia has given up on both?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oops! Here you admit that my claim that SV believes there is no evidence for anything of significance in the BoM is valid.

srFF, I wonder if you have the least idea how transparently dishonest this post of yours is.

halleyscomet's post neither quotes me, addresses me, nor refers to me. What possible epistemological error justifies you accusing haleyscomet of "admitting" to a claim you have made about what I believe--a claim of yours supported by no post or statement of mine, but by your own inventions, and nothing else?

Why not deal with what halleyscomet actually said, addressing halleyscomet; and with what I have actually said, addressing me? Instead of working off your script, consider reading what is posted.

You don't know a fraction of what BYU apologists know about the BoM. You speak of examining "pages upon pages" in the BoM. BYU researchers have spent years—in some cases, their entire professional lives—studying the BoM.

Why is it then, when I ask you to provide evidence, you offer none?

You are a club member; why is it that you do not respond to request for information? Is all of the "evidence" that supports the kind of civilization described in the exciting "american chapters" of Smith's invention a secret?

You do not even respond to requests for you to state your own opinions. I wonder why that is.

I have deleted the balance of your post; it offers nothing new.

I do wish you would explain when you think the exciting events of the "american chapters" of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place, and where.

I am also still curious about your take on the whole Fludde thing.

 

[Dissolution]

Is there any chance that you could get one of these BYU apologists to post on here please, Skyrider?
Perhaps they could offer some evidence for your claims, as there doesn't seem to have been any, so far.

 

[halleyscomet]

Is there any chance that you could get one of these BYU apologists to post on here please, Skyrider?
Perhaps they could offer some evidence for your claims, as there doesn't seem to have been any, so far.

Sadly, it looks like their best efforts have already been discussed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#Horses

Horses
A tapir - Some Mormon apologists believe that the word "horse" in the Book of Mormon refers to a tapir in order to explain the anachronism.

Horses are mentioned eleven times in the Book of Mormon in the context of its New World setting.[32] There is no evidence that horses existed on the American continent during the 2500-3000 year history of the Book of Mormon (2500 BC - 400 AD). The only evidence of horses on the American continent dates to pre-historic times,[33] (between 12,500 and 10,000 BC.[34]). It is widely accepted that horses were extinct in the Western Hemisphere over 10,000 years ago and did not reappear there until the Spaniards brought them from Europe.[35] Horses were re-introduced to the Americas (Caribbean) by Christopher Columbus in 1493[36] and to the American continent by Cortés in 1519.[37][38]
See also: Quaternary extinction event

Mormon apologists argue the following to deal with this supposed anachronism:

Mormon apologist John L. Sorenson at FARMS claims that there is fossil evidence that some New World horses may have survived the Pleistocene–Holocene transition,[39] though these findings are disputed by mainstream archaeologists.[40]

Mormon apologist Robert R. Bennett suggests that the word "horse" in the Book of Mormon may have referred to a different animal, such as a tapir.[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#Iron_and_steel

Iron and steel
Aztec warriors brandishing maquahuitl, which are made of stone. From the 16th century Florentine Codex, Vol. IX.

Steel and iron are mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon.[77] No evidence has been found in North, Central, or South America of iron being hardened anciently to make “steel”.

Though researchers have shown that primitive metallurgy existed in South America, metal production was only used for adornment purposes. The very earliest metal working there dates to 200 AD with the Moche culture[original research?].[citation needed] This dates thousands of years after the Jaredite civilization is alleged to have existed and 800 years after the alleged beginning of the Nephite civilization in the Book of Mormon. Metallurgy spread to Central America by 800 AD (long after the Book of Mormon record closes).[original research?][citation needed]

Between 2004 and 2007, a Purdue University archaeologist, Kevin J. Vaughn, discovered a 2000 year old hematite mine near Nazca, Peru. Although hematite is today mined as an iron ore, Vaughn believes that the hematite was then being mined for use as red pigment. There are also numerous excavations that included iron minerals.[78] He noted:

"Even though ancient Andean people smelted some metals, such as copper, they never smelted iron like they did in the Old World...Metals were used for a variety of tools in the Old World, such as weapons, while in the Americas, metals were used as prestige goods for the wealthy elite."[79]

Apologists counter that the word "steel", as used in the Book of Mormon, likely refers to a hardened metal other than iron. This argument follows from the fact that the Book of Mormon refers to certain Old World articles made of “steel”.[80] Similar “steel” articles mentioned in the King James Version of the Bible are actually hardened copper.[81] It has been amply demonstrated that much of the terminology of the English Book of Mormon, parallels the Authorized King James Bible.[82] Copper and its alloys have the ability to corrode, thus satisfying the description of “blades” which had “cankered with rust”.[citation needed] Ancient mound building cultures of North America are known to have worked copper, silver, gold and meteoric iron, although no instances of metallic blades or of deliberately alloyed (or "hardened") copper have been uncovered from ancient North America.[83]

The apologists Skyrider44 evokes with the vigor of an exorcist calling upon Christ appear to offer noting but excuses and rationalizations which STILL fail to provide a satisfactory explanation. For example, fudging and saying "Well, 'steel' just means some other strengthened metal," results in a similar lack of archeological evidence, just with a different metal.

We've already discussed the "evidence" of horses not being extinct in the Americas during the time period described by the Book of Mormon. The lone skull has been carbon dated as post-Columbian, something Mormon apologists omit either through ignorance or intentional deception. As for "horses" being tapirs, you're not going to get a "chariot" of any value out of anything being pulled by a tapir.

 

[SezMe]

If non-profit organizations like the Church did not do what they do (operate everything from soup kitchens to spouse abuse shelters), government would have to carry out those functions. Consequently, your tax bill would be much higher than it is today. Do you really believe bureaucrats are efficient money managers?

Governments at all levels already perform social safety network functions. I see religious organizations only working at the margins and some use their work as an opportunity to proselytize. I could be wrong though. All you need do is provide some evidence for the highlighted word.

Wait! I asked you for some evidence? Silly me.

 

[tsig]

Sadly, it looks like their best efforts have already been discussed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#Horses



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#Iron_and_steel



The apologists Skyrider44 evokes with the vigor of an exorcist calling upon Christ appear to offer noting but excuses and rationalizations which STILL fail to provide a satisfactory explanation. For example, fudging and saying "Well, 'steel' just means some other strengthened metal," results in a similar lack of archeological evidence, just with a different metal.

We've already discussed the "evidence" of horses not being extinct in the Americas during the time period described by the Book of Mormon. The lone skull has been carbon dated as post-Columbian, something Mormon apologists omit either through ignorance or intentional deception. As for "horses" being tapirs, you're not going to get a "chariot" of any value out of anything being pulled by a tapir.

I horses doesn't mean horses then god got it wrong:

A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

http://www.mrm.org/translation


God wouldn't let them make a mistake.

 

[Giordano]

Is there any chance that you could get one of these BYU apologists to post on here please, Skyrider?
Perhaps they could offer some evidence for your claims, as there doesn't seem to have been any, so far.

^^^This. Because apparently you have none to offer.

 

[Craig4]

If non-profit organizations like the Church did not do what they do (operate everything from soup kitchens to spouse abuse shelters), government would have to carry out those functions. Consequently, your tax bill would be much higher than it is today. Do you really believe bureaucrats are efficient money managers?

Why would the government send people out to tell me there were horses in the pre Columbian Americas?

 

[sackett]

Here I come, Skyrider!

... 19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

I'll leave it to others to figure that out.

You never heard of cureloms and cumoms? An ignorant gentile wouldn’t have, I suppose.

First off, Reformed Egyptian read from right to left, not left to right. So you have to realize that the Prophet was referring to smolerucs and smomucs. Got that? Following me so far?

Okay. Smolerucs and smomucs. Well, not a single early Saint nor any decently-brought-up Mormon even to the present day is bothered by reference to those very useful (and probably tasty) animals. You can’t find one Latter-Day source that questions them!

If that doesn’t prove their existence then your mind is closed.

 

[Craig4]

Oops! Here you admit that my claim that SV believes there is no evidence for anything of significance in the BoM is valid.



You don't know a fraction of what BYU apologists know about the BoM. You speak of examining "pages upon pages" in the BoM. BYU researchers have spent years—in some cases, their entire professional lives—studying the BoM.

I have deleted the balance of your post; it offers nothing new.

What difference does it make how much they know about the BoM? If there aren't any horses, there aren't any horses. No amount of studying can change that.

 

[skyrider44]

how about you address your claim regarding Hebrew idioms which you still have not answered[/U] which I have repeatedly asked for from you?

Remember the old adage "It's a good idea to be careful what you ask for"?

In the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 4/1 (1995), pp. 218-25, Sidney B. Sperry published an article entitled "Hebrew Idioms in the Book of Mormon." Here are some excerpts:

1) "Literal translations of Hebrew idioms are prevalent in the Book of Mormon, as are literal renditions of compound Hebrew prepositions."

2) "The use of bdyadh 'by the hand of,' indicating agency or instrumentality, occurs 47 times in the Nephite record."

3) "The compound preposition mippdne, 'from' (literally 'from before') . . . very often receives a literal translation in the BoM. Examples:
'And they fled from before my presence.' (1 Nephi 4:28) . . . 'For he had gone from before my presence.'" (1 Nephi 11:12) . . .'Insomuch that they did fall back from before them.'" (3 Nephi 4:12)

4) "Another similar compound, mippi, 'from the mouth of,' will be found in the Book of Mormon six times, [including in 1 Nephi 13:24 and Mosiah 21:28]."

Dr. Sperry cites many other examples and concludes: "These studies support the idea that the Book of Mormon was originally written in Hebrew. Most of the idioms in the book appear to be typically Hebrew; there appear to be few which could be called Egyptian. To be sure Egyptian names are found in the Nephite record, and other evidences point to the fact that Nephite historians were acquainted with the language and customs of Egypt, but the text proper shows the strong influence of Hebrew."

Of course, the naysayers will say that Joseph Smith merely copied the Hebrew idioms from the Bible. That may be, but it is not fair to say that Hebrew idioms are not evident in the Book of Mormon.